Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ? (forw)
as a simple reply isn't sent to the list - Forwarded message from Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:22:11 +0100 From: Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Aric Cyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ? In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48:09AM +, Aric Cyr wrote: Maybe I'll fire off an email to Turbolinux to see what they have to say, although technically unless I purchase or receive their product I am not directly entitled to the GPL/LGPL code from them. Anyone have a copy of Can you please let me know why you think that? 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The modified work must itself be a software library. b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. ... --- So I guess if they are using some code of yours that you provided to them under LGPL, you are entiteld to request the source. In case this goes to court you'll need a copy, but for now it is sufficient to be sure that they are distributing a product based on your code which is covered by the LGPL. Again: It is *you* who granted them the right to use your code, and by putting it under LGPL you made sure that you are entitled to any changes they make to *the* code once they start distributing your code (or derivatives) to thrid parties. That way you can reqeust the changes even when the new product costs $10M. Ciao Joerg -- Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. - End forwarded message - -- Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ? (forw)
Joerg Mayer jmayer at loplof.de writes: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48:09AM +, Aric Cyr wrote: Maybe I'll fire off an email to Turbolinux to see what they have to say, although technically unless I purchase or receive their product I am not directly entitled to the GPL/LGPL code from them. Anyone have a copy of Can you please let me know why you think that? 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The modified work must itself be a software library. b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. ... --- You are reading this from the wrong point of view I believe. The You in this case would be SpecOps Labs. They implicitly agree to this LGPL license by modifying hte copyrighted code. So I guess if they are using some code of yours that you provided to them under LGPL, you are entiteld to request the source. In case this goes to court you'll need a copy, but for now it is sufficient to be sure that they are distributing a product based on your code which is covered by the LGPL. Anyone who buys their product, or anyone they give their product to is entitled to the source code. From LGPL section 4 (remember, You = SpecOps Labs): 4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange. Again: It is *you* who granted them the right to use your code, and by putting it under LGPL you made sure that you are entitled to any changes they make to *the* code once they start distributing your code (or derivatives) to thrid parties. That way you can reqeust the changes even when the new product costs $10M. No,that's not the way GPL or LGPL works I'm afraid. These licenses exist so that the users of the applications, etc will always have free access to the source code, and the free rights to redistribute it as necessary. Their purpose is free speech not free beer. As Brian said, they are perfectly in their right upto now (as long as there are no products with Wine code floating around), it's just that they are really sticking it to the the community and not playing nice. It is (current) philisophical, not legal. When someone gets a copy of David, and SpecOps Labs refuses to disseminate the code, then it will become legal. - Aric
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Hi, On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:48:09AM +, Aric Cyr wrote: Seeing that SpecOps Labs history of ignoring Wine developers extends for more than a year, then yes I can agree with that. Yup, there has been more silence than anything else. According to their Partners' page, IBM and Turbolinux and a few others seem to be footing the bill. I'm sure a well written email to either of those places would get a real response, and probably apply due pressure on SpecOps Labs. Oh, now that's interesting. Especially given that IBM's usual stance about Wine is often said to be... umm... let's say mildly sceptical. But since the Partners text already mentions that it is an IBM Philippines cooperation, this seems to imply that the corporation's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing (yet! this might change in the future... Hello SpecOpsLabs!). Oh well... Andreas Mohr
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
It is not a requirement that patches be submitted - only that source code be made available. Patches are normally submitted because it is more convenient for the developer if the change is in the canonical version. If the developer does not see the value of having their patch in the canonical tree, they will not (and are not required to) submit it. In fact, the only person that can demand anything wrt the LGPL is someone that is running their software. So if someone has bought a copy of TurboLinux 11 in Japan, they have the right to demand a copy of the source code to the Wine bits in Project David; presumably they'd have to ask Turbo Linux. Be great if someone would do that... Cheers, Jeremy
has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter... So why no patches from SpecOps? should Wine move to GPL to keep from being robbed of its code? If your wondering why I'm ranting : http://news.inq7.net/infotech/index.php?index=1story_id=60585 Tom
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
On 12/20/05, Tom Wickline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your wondering why I'm ranting : http://news.inq7.net/infotech/index.php?index=1story_id=60585 http://www.specopslabs.com/projdav-framework.htm Okay, can someone from SpecOps please send me a nice .bz2 of there changes? Tom
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:24:40PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote: Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter... So why no patches from SpecOps? should Wine move to GPL to keep from being robbed of its code? I would really like to see more than speculation on this product. LGPL has similar restrictions on releasing the source with binaries too btw. Ciao, Marcus
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:24, Tom Wickline wrote: Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter... So why no patches from SpecOps? It is not a requirement that patches be submitted - only that source code be made available. Patches are normally submitted because it is more convenient for the developer if the change is in the canonical version. If the developer does not see the value of having their patch in the canonical tree, they will not (and are not required to) submit it. should Wine move to GPL to keep from being robbed of its code? What difference do you expect that to make? If your wondering why I'm ranting : http://news.inq7.net/infotech/index.php?index=1story_id=60585 What version of Wine is their stuff based on? -- Troy Rollo - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 23:38 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:24:40PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote:
Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter...
So why no patches from SpecOps? should Wine move to GPL to keep from
being robbed of its code?
I would really like to see more than speculation on this product.
Well, I just checked TurboLinux press archive and amazon.co.jp, and it really
is available to the public. Whatever David really is, TurboLinux considered
it important enough to write two press releases, and make David the main
attraction of TurboLinux FUJI. See:
http://www.turbolinux.com/cgi-bin/newsrelease/index.cgi?date2=20050821173249mode=syosai
http://www.turbolinux.com/cgi-bin/newsrelease/index.cgi?date2=20050922035747mode=syosai
I'm still sceptical, though. After reading the press release, I still have no
idea what David's supposed to be...
--
Willie Sippel
| Tritium Studios
// | __
///| http://www.tritium-studios.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:08, Jeremy White wrote: In fact, the only person that can demand anything wrt the LGPL is someone that is running their software. So if someone has bought a copy of TurboLinux 11 in Japan, they have the right to demand a copy of the source code to the Wine bits in Project David; presumably they'd have to ask Turbo Linux. It's more complex than that. The only person who is entitled to a copy of the source code is a person who has received a copy of the compiled code, however that person has no legal right to enforce that entitlement. A person who has copyright in the code has to then take enforcement action for breach of copyright and breach of contract in order to enforce it. If a person with copyright in the code receives the compiled code, then the rights are, more conveniently, coincident in the same person. -- Troy Rollo - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Troy Rollo wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:08, Jeremy White wrote: In fact, the only person that can demand anything wrt the LGPL is someone that is running their software. So if someone has bought a copy of TurboLinux 11 in Japan, they have the right to demand a copy of the source code to the Wine bits in Project David; presumably they'd have to ask Turbo Linux. It's more complex than that. The only person who is entitled to a copy of the source code is a person who has received a copy of the compiled code, however that person has no legal right to enforce that entitlement. A person who has copyright in the code has to then take enforcement action for breach of copyright and breach of contract in order to enforce it. If a person with copyright in the code receives the compiled code, then the rights are, more conveniently, coincident in the same person. Uhhh.. Ok, anyways, if I find any of my code in there, ill enforce breach of copyright.. I wrote it, I dont want money for it, but I would like to be notified of it's use by something/someone other than the media. Tom begin:vcard fn:Tom n:Spear;Tom note:a.k.a. Dustin Navea x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
There is a review here : http://digital.hmx.net/02contents/pc/linux/fuji.shtml You might need : http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to translate it. I'll post parts of there review here Ricoh TrueType font (JIS third fourth level support) Japanese input software ATOK for Linux Windows interchangeable middleware David snip Windows interchangeable middleware David The idea contest where the letter which is called to the task tray David enters is visible. David with the product of SpecOps Labs, is the software which makes the application for Windows execute on Linux. Turbolinux concluded the monopoly sale contract of David with SpecOps, Labs mounted on FUJI. The Windows interchangeable environment which David offers is actualized by result ones of open source software wine and the technology of individual development. David enters, mounting result ones of wine, but perfection of Windows environment approach differs from wine which designates re-mounting as goal e.g., Win32 API re-mounting is designated as minimum. Because of that, the plug in, David engine and the David rice plant which is offered to every application - the brassiere which offers application common Windows interchangeable function is offered by David, the rice plant - as for the Windows application where the brassiere was offered, is a feature that it operates quite with high compatibility. With FUJI the David engine and the tool and the rice plant which support the introduction of Windows application - the brassiere is offered. The rice plant - Turbolinux verifies the brassiere individually, in order to operate without trouble those which rework are offered, at present time the rice plant of Microsoft Office - the brassiere is offered. Unless the rice plant - there is a brassiere, it cannot introduce application and it cannot execute, but speaking conversely, because the rice plant - the brassiere stopping as for those which are offered operates without trouble, feeling at rest, there is a merit which you can use. If the rice plant - type of brassiere increases, from the fact that also the number of applications which are worked increases, in the future the rice plant - the number of brassieres that is thought whether it is not it increases. Furthermore, is informal, but also it is possible to move InternetExplorer with David of FUJI attachment. After inspecting with own power, we would like to have trying the one which has interest in self responsibility. -- Next is to order a copy and ask for the Wine source if its not included. Tom
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Troy Rollo wine at troy.rollo.name writes: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:24, Tom Wickline wrote: Yes I have read the licence just re read it for that matter... So why no patches from SpecOps? It is not a requirement that patches be submitted - only that source code be made available. Patches are normally submitted because it is more convenient for the developer if the change is in the canonical version. If the developer does not see the value of having their patch in the canonical tree, they will not (and are not required to) submit it. should Wine move to GPL to keep from being robbed of its code? What difference do you expect that to make? If your wondering why I'm ranting : http://news.inq7.net/infotech/index.php?index=1story_id=60585 What version of Wine is their stuff based on? The TurboLinux Japanese page simply says they are licensing David from SpecOps Labs and that it is partially based on Wine. Following the link to SpecOpS Labs, I read the fine print at the bottom of this page: http://www.specopslabs.com/projdav-framework.htm It sounds like there is hardly an issue here (provided they do as they say)... move along, nothing to see here. :) - Aric
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
On 12/20/05, Aric Cyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like there is hardly an issue here (provided they do as they say)... move along, nothing to see here. :) Your a trusting fellow I see. You should look at this swamp land I have for sale, its guaranteed to perc. :D Tom - Aric
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Tom Wickline twickline at gmail.com writes: On 12/20/05, Aric Cyr Aric.Cyr at gmail.com wrote: It sounds like there is hardly an issue here (provided they do as they say)... move along, nothing to see here. :) Your a trusting fellow I see. You should look at this swamp land I have for sale, its guaranteed to perc. :D Tom Trusting perhaps, but not an over-reationist for sure. Has anyone approached SpecObs Labs and asked for the code? Have they said no? This is all just speculation and hardly worthy of a thread until such comes to pass. For a company to (fairly) prominantely state on their product web page that they will release their modified Wine code to the open source community is reassuring. Innocent until proven guilty is always a nice standard to live by I believe. An trust me, a small company like SpecOps Lab certainly doesn't want to bring down the wrath of the open source community down upon it... besides the legal ramifications, the bad press would be enough to cause the severe problems, if not force them to shut down (due to lack of customers). Wine is LGPL as I understand it. Codeweavers takes advantage of that, as do other companies I imagine (Transgaming?). What's one more company basing a product on Wine code, provided they follow the license they agreed to when they received the code? Give them a chance is all I am saying... ... and no I don't want your stink'in swamp :) Regards, Aric
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Trusting perhaps, but not an over-reationist for sure. Has anyone approached SpecObs Labs and asked for the code? Have they said no? This is all just speculation and hardly worthy of a thread until such comes to pass. For a company to (fairly) prominantely state on their product web page that they will release their modified Wine code to the open source community is reassuring. Innocent until proven guilty is always a nice standard to live by I believe. An trust me, a small company like SpecOps Lab certainly doesn't want to bring down the wrath of the open source community down upon it... besides the legal ramifications, the bad press would be enough to cause the severe problems, if not force them to shut down (due to lack of customers). Wine is LGPL as I understand it. Codeweavers takes advantage of that, as do other companies I imagine (Transgaming?). What's one more company basing a product on Wine code, provided they follow the license they agreed to when they received the code? Give them a chance is all I am saying... ... and no I don't want your stink'in swamp :) The SpecOps folks have been contacted before, search the archives. As for Transgaming, they use a pre-LGPL fork of the Wine code, parts of which they've released under the Aladin Public License, parts under a BSD-like license, parts have never been released. I believe it's quite safe to say that out of the three companies, Codeweavers is the only one to have mutually agreeable relations with the wine project. Skepticism and distrust is not an unfounded reaction under such conditions. --tim
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Wine is LGPL as I understand it. Codeweavers takes advantage of that, as do other companies I imagine (Transgaming?). What's one more company basing a product on Wine code, provided they follow the license they agreed to when they received the code? Give them a chance is all I am saying... Well, there is such a thing as contributing to the community as opposed to ripping it off. They are perfectly within their rights to work in a bubble or not share any of their ideas with anyone. They can also make simple bugfixes in Wine and not even bother to submit a patch to wine-patches. Heck, they don't even need to send a thank you note. That's not the right thing to do and we all know it. Wine has a track record of being ripped off by companies. Perhaps it's not as bad as other projects, such as Samba, but it's definitely happened. So far SpecOpsLabs have a pathetic track record that only seems to be getting worse. Let's run this down from the beginning: 1. They showed off a product without any explanation that Wine was involved. In fact, at first they completely denied Wine was part of their product: http://www.winehq.com/?issue=220#Project%20David%20? 2. Then Ge van Geldorp discovered that Wine really was part of it: http://www.winehq.com/?issue=222#Project%20David%20Uses%20CodeWeavers%20CrossOver%20Office 3. That was followed shortly thereafter by Mike McCormack discovering a CrossOver only hack was visible in a screenshot. So they basically ripped off CodeWeavers. SpecOpsLabs never had an explanation for why a CrossOver specific bug some how made it into their tree. In fact, they specifically denied using CXO: http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=1454 (Given the choice between believing Mike, who probably knows all of the gory details about that bug, or SpecOpsLabs.. well, I think I'd trust Mike any day of the week. And twice on Sundays.) 4. Then SpecOpsLabs sent one email to wine-devel asking for info on how to contact Alexandre. Honestly, how difficult is it to find Alexandre's email address? How many Alexandre Julliard's do you think turn up when you type the name into Google? Several members of the Wine community graciously replied to the email with no response from them. http://www.winehq.com/?issue=241#SpecOps%20Labs%20Steps%20Up Everyone asked for more info so if they planned on contributing that there wouldn't a duplication of effort. All in all, we've graciously asked them to contribute and not gotten a response in return. You know what pisses me off though? They can't even spend five minutes sending a thank you note to wine-devel. By the way, I only wrote this response since I plan on including it in this week's WWN and I figured I'd write it here first rather than editorializing it. Does anyone think it's unduly harsh? Merry Christmas, SpecOps. I hope you enjoy your gift of 1.7 million lines of code. -Brian
Re: has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Tim Schmidt timschmidt at gmail.com writes: The SpecOps folks have been contacted before, search the archives. As for Transgaming, they use a pre-LGPL fork of the Wine code, parts of which they've released under the Aladin Public License, parts under a BSD-like license, parts have never been released. Ya, I suspected that of Transgaming actually, hence the (?). I just did a search, a read through the thread from Sept. Thanks for the heads up. Didn't know that this is old news. I believe it's quite safe to say that out of the three companies, Codeweavers is the only one to have mutually agreeable relations with the wine project. Skepticism and distrust is not an unfounded reaction under such conditions. Seeing that SpecOps Labs history of ignoring Wine developers extends for more than a year, then yes I can agree with that. According to their Partners' page, IBM and Turbolinux and a few others seem to be footing the bill. I'm sure a well written email to either of those places would get a real response, and probably apply due pressure on SpecOps Labs. Maybe I'll fire off an email to Turbolinux to see what they have to say, although technically unless I purchase or receive their product I am not directly entitled to the GPL/LGPL code from them. Anyone have a copy of Turbolinux 11 with this David stuff in it? If there are no users to disseminate the product (which they are allowed to do, given the inherent LGPL license), then there is effectively no way to get our hands on the source code. You can do whatever you want to GPL/LGPL code, but if you don't give the result to anyone (binary or otherwise) you do not have an obligation to release those changes back to the original author (as was mentioned earlier in this thread). Regards, Aric
